Uh oh. The world government guys will have to find another end of the world or else threat.But they are so creative that it shouldn't take them very long. I remember that even McCain was on the side of the Climate Change To Nowhere earmarkers. This is so sad. A lifetime career in deception going up in smoke and never to be seen again.

A quick survey of the usual MSM web outlets only showed Fox reporting this as a front-page headline. Interesting to watch the rest of them and see if it trickles it. I'm hoping that this isn't just a tempest in a teapot sort of thing. Again, watch the principles involved over the next couple of days to see who says what.

PWS...You need to catch up. The Evil Scientists now call Global warming Climate Change after it stopped warming ten years ago. But they are convinced that the globe getting colder is a sign of a future globe getting warmer...you know like the stock market. They are right about that. As soon as the sun spots crank back up so that our cloud formations lessen, then the globe will warm up again. Now do us all a favor and quit breathing out CO2 which certainly must help to start and to stop sun spots. Or maybe the CO2 is only a harmless sign of people using their own earth without getting your permission first by paying "protection money " to the World Mob and Godfather Gore.

I think I read that the scientists had admitted to the emails being genuine.

They said they could not remember exactly what they meant about hiding the data by manipulating the graphs. But they did show open admiration for another "scinetist's" previous facility with misleading graphs and were enthusiastic about using it themselves.

Not surprising. This extract below is from Richard Feynman's famous 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech:

"That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—-a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

Now lay this against what we've seen with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Have the people pushing this put down all the facts that disagree with their theory? Have they reported other things that could explain their results (e.g., that most of the observed warming trends can be explained by variation in solar output and, most critically that we've come a long way in cleaning up our air -- it is no longer as polluted by NOx or SO2 as in the years following WWII).

Note that this is separate and apart from the issue of whether it makes sense to develop the capabilities to exploit alternate energy sources. The sun will shine whether we have solar cells deployed or not. The wind will blow whether we have wind turbines deployed or not. Uranium atoms will decay whether we use nuclear generating plants or not. We should be doing all that. What we should not be doing, is developing alternate energy sources because of junk science. No, make that junque science, to mark how elaborate the hoax has been.

Much like the Obama folks clinging to their crashing leader, global warming fanatics (mostly the same people) will cling to this fake threat forever, no matter what evidence is presented. Nothing will change their minds.

However, Cap and Trade is dead and hopefully soon Al Gore will retire to his farm and never be heard from again.

Let's assume these hacked materials are not forgeries (which they certainly could be). Let's assume that, at some point, a non-Fox mainstream media outlet -- USA Today would be a likely candidate -- reports this story and their reporting confirms the fudged data and other alleged activities.

What do the politicos do?

Does Obama vary his approach at all? Does cap and trade get shelved? What do the European leaders, so impatient for us to take action, do?

Think like a political novelist, a Tom Clancy/Herman Wouk/David Baldacci kind of guy. How does this play out on the low road?

Big Mike, your quote from Feynman has perfectly encapsulated my unease with AGW. It's not that I don't believe it; I actually do. It's not that I don't want to see alt-fuels eventually replace oil and coal; I very much do, at some point soon when the economics are more favorable.

I just feel like, on this issue, too many scientists are not acting like scientists. Even the phrase "scientific consensus" seems anti-science to me. A scientist propounding a theory is supposed to expect his peers to try to falsify it. He or she greets the attempt with open arms, and shares data to help facilitate it. But not with this issue. Why?

I've assumed they've acted this anomalous way because they're genuinely alarmed and don't want to confuse people about something they are legitimately worried about. But this alleged incident raises other possibilities that are extremely disturbing.

Cap and trade may get shelved anyway. If Obama wants a Democratic Congress after January 2011, he'll start worrying about jobs.

Anyway, once people tire of Global Warming they'll just find something else. When I was younger it was overpopulation. Since WW2 it was nuclear war (with the nuclear winter upgrade in the 80s.)

There will always be SOMETHING, some two axis malthusian graph that shows we are doomed. We are always being told that if we don't change our ways, we'll pay. It's really very religious, more about virtue than actual results. That's why we have busybodies telling us what light bulbs to buy while preventing nuclear power plant construction.

Anyway, once people tire of Global Warming they'll just find something else. When I was younger it was overpopulation. Since WW2 it was nuclear war (with the nuclear winter upgrade in the 80s.)

I get where you're going here, but let's not make the mistake of lumping the shadow of nuclear war that we grew up under (I'm 39).

That was a very real threat that actually almost happened by accident a couple of times. We all knew that the whole world could literally end within 30 minutes. That is nothing like the AGW farce and the sycophants praying at Gore's alter.

There will always be SOMETHING, some two axis malthusian graph that shows we are doomed. We are always being told that if we don't change our ways, we'll pay. It's really very religious, more about virtue than actual results.

For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

1. A lack of attention to real, actual pollutants. There's still plenty of chemicals being dumped into the water and air. I don't like the brown cloud over my town from coal powered power plants in New Mexico. Solid particulates are actually dangerous and coal smoke causes acid rain. I can see the results of this. I don't like it. There is some overlap between CO2 and other pollution, but if we want to deal with reality we should focus on actual environmental threats.

2. The distortion of environmentalism away from actual results and toward abstract rhetoric. It's now about wasting money on "green" products and industries (and being seen to do so) rather than actually improving the environment. Toyota made a masterful marketing choice when they made the Prius look different than their other cars.

3. Meanwhile, the emphasis on CO2 makes measuring environmental improvement virtually impossible. Is there more or less wilderness because of CO2 regulations? Can't tell (more CO2 might be good for trees). Like "jobs created or saved" there's no way to measure how successful any CO2 regulation will be. If it gets warmer, then it would have gotten still warmer without the regs. If it gets colder, then the regs worked. There's no way to disprove it.

4. Once AGW is proven to be bunk, environmentalists will have a hard time getting their credibility back. Or maybe not.

Real climate.org is admitting that the e-mails are legit. So, we can end all talk of some Russian hacking forgery.

The e-mails that I have seen show a two big things.

1. The AGW promoting scientists are guilty of the worst scientific group think imaginable. It is one thing to throw away experimental data that is outside of the norm and what the models predict. It is another thing to only consider data that fits the models and endlessly torture the data to make sure that it fits the model. Their entire purpose in life seems to be to prove the skeptics wrong, even if that meant ignoring or supressing data.

2. They actively conspired to ensure that skeptical papers did not get into peer reviewed literature. It is a pretty good scam. Just prevent anyone who disagrees with from publishing in a peer reviewed journal and then claim that their views are not vaild because they are not published in peer reviewed journals.

3. They also admit that they can't explain why the earth stopped warming in the last 10 years and how they need to find a strategy to minimize that fact and keep the skeptics from using it. clearly, some great science was going on.

GRANTS. There is plenty of incentive to lie your head off and not allow peer review if it means you or your institution or the company you are shilling for will get some nice tasty grants for nodding your head like a bobble doll in agreement with the Global Warming schtick.

PWS...You need to catch up. The Evil Scientists now call Global warming Climate Change after it stopped warming ten years ago. But they are convinced that the globe getting colder is a sign of a future globe getting warmer...you know like the stock market. They are right about that. As soon as the sun spots crank back up so that our cloud formations lessen, then the globe will warm up again. Now do us all a favor and quit breathing out CO2 which certainly must help to start and to stop sun spots. Or maybe the CO2 is only a harmless sign of people using their own film izlefilm izlefilm izlefilm izleçizgi film izleanime izleerotik film izleerotik film izleonline film izlefilm izle earth without getting your permission first by paying "protection money " to the World Mob and Godfather Gore.

Langmuir discusses six examples of pathological science, from "Davis-Barnes Effect" to "Flying Saucers".

Importantly, Langmuir states "The characteristics of this Davis-Barnes experiment and the N-rays and the mitogenetic rays, they have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published upon them. Sometimes they have lasted for fifteen or twenty years and then they gradually die away."

Despite the CRU gamesmanship (if it is as reported) I think most anthropogenic global warming theorists are honest. That doesn't mean they are right.

John Lynch -- excellent, excellent points. One key example -- Al Gore attributing the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro to global warming. Most likely culprit? Deforestation around the mountain's base.

These e-mails are the equivilent of finding in 1926 that Schroadinger and Heissenberg where writing back and forth trying to find ways to supress data that didn't fit with quantum mechanics and ensure that Enstein could never get a skeptical paper published.

They really are a big deal. Further, the guys who wrote these e-mails go out and do a lot of testifying before government committees and the like. They won't be able to do that anymore without being cross examined with these emails. Their credibility and reputations are shot. This is a big deal. The Left and the MSM will try to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. But there is no denying the damage that has been done.

A silver lining for me is that I can now jump to item 1(b) on this list and forget the other items for now. Item 1(b) alone will be a formidable task, but there are encouraging signs that dissident voices will be heard.

Item 1(a) may still be worthwhile considering, perhaps after the next administration takes office (show trials?).

Most of the people who'd made even a cursory look at this topic already knew that misrepresentation, fakery, and data manipulation were the order of the day for the hardcore AGW believers. It's nice that they were stupid and arrogant enough to document so much of their deceit and that the documentation has now been released for the public to see.

This event will highlight who the fact-resistant, die-hard, true believers are (it's safe to put PWS in that category).

Contending that these frauds have any honesty, integrity or scientific credibility even after the release of these emails and other data is akin to contending that the Rosenbergs were innocent patriotic Americans even after the release of the Venona cables.

Distribution for Endorsements —I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution aspossible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts isnumbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is adifferent story.

Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget askingthem about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get thosenames!

Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there wasa sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expectthat we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I amafraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have anytime to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hearabout it.3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should haveit a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spreadthe word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be sobad to release the Statement in the same week, but on adiffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from twovery different directions.

Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17November at the latest.

Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to competewith the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am stillwilling to send you what I have, if you wish.

Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quoteanything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.

Re, your point at the end–you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essentialfor the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. Butlegitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, inparticular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient conditionfor taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimatescientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outsideof this system are not to be trusted.

mike

especially considering the same guy wrote this:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as alegitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climateresearch community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would alsoneed to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currentlysit on the editorial board...What do others think?mike

One key example -- Al Gore attributing the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro to global warming.

Is Mr. Gore aware that Mt. Kilimanjaro is (1) a volcano and (2) only 3 degrees south of the equator? Although it is inactive, the magma chamber is only 400 meters below the peak and geothermal energy is vented through fumaroles.

This may make a number of true believing scientists look foolish, venal or worse, but it's hardly the end of the AGW issue. Nor should it be. The crime against science has been to make a point of view something sacred--a sacred consensus. However, the fact that dishonest people have tried to slant the data and marginalize the skeptics does not mean that they are wrong. The entire issue is too complex, and the data is too ambiguous, for a conclusive answer one way or another.

It's good to have dishonest exposed but that does mean that we should conclude that AGW is not a serious problem. It should and will remain a important focus.

For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

Amen. Sometimes I refer to myself as a 1980s' environmentalist. Let's return the focus back to the public health and habitat restoration foci of environmental law and policy. These things remain vital, complicated and costly matters to wrestle with. Why the green movement felt it necessary to go all sci-fi on us will be a subject for many historians. Saving the earth is nice, if the earth needs saving. But I think saving the people who live around LA/LB harbors from breathing toxic air contaminants is more important work. Getting us off coal and oil because their extraction is ruinous is a great reason to push hard for conversion to cleaner sources. But when you throw apocalypse into the mix, you end up with the kinds of "you're an envirofascist...you're a denier" food-fights of the past 20 years.

The warmist's insistence that the "science" is settled and their fascist tactics in suppressing dissent and debate was a dead giveaway that they were foisting a falsehood on the public. The fact that they are leftists also points to totalitarian, amoral tendencies and an obsession with power and control.

AGW as a means to frighten the population into accepting a loss of freedom and a lower standard of living is Cloward-Piven in action.

That, along with health care "reform" and accruing an impossible debt load is the left's strategy to cause the system to collapse.

And while Obama and his bots whine endlessly that they are overwhelmed trying to clean up Bush's mess, the next Republican administration will be the ones with the real mess to clean up.

@David, go back and read my post at 2:01. The issue is simple -- the climate scientists are not behaving like real scientists.

If we could have an honest debate about climate then we'd ask questions like (1) how serious is CO2 as a greenhouse gas (answer: not nearly as serious as H2O or methane), (2) is climate change spread evenly across the globe (answer: no, it seems to be mostly in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere), (3) can we actually freeze the global climate in place (answer: you must be sh*tting me).

@John Stodder, there is a body of research, which has had to keep itself clandestine or at least below the radar, that thinks our successes in cleaning up the atmosphere are partially responsible for global warming -- the NOx and SO2 we used to pump into the air were having the same cooling effect as a major volcano. Not that any Democrat would allow that research to be funded!

"It's good to have dishonest exposed but that does mean that we should conclude that AGW is not a serious problem. It should and will remain a important focus"

Sure. But in context. Like the authors of "Freakonomics" who didn't deny AGW but instead looked at it on cost/benefit basis and devoted space in their book to explore options like geo-engineering. Or the lower costs of simply dealing with a warming earth vs. an all out war on CO2.

Of course, they were immediately criticized, in particular with the way they interpreted a prominent climate scientist's research (he knew this, but simply chalked it up to their perogative to view his data that way). Didn't fit the "Day After Tomorrow" narrative.

“Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !”

Most of us geologists and astronomers have been skeptical about this for something like fifteen years -- we know too much about paleoclimate (GSMOW, anyone?) and fluctuations in solar energy.

It does not surprise me a bit that the soft-science folks would be cheating to make a point. However, if even half of this stuff is true it will be a scandal of the first order, nearly destroying scientific credibility for ordinary folks.

The next scandal to look at is how cancer researchers don't really want any big advances towards a cure.

There are many intelligent, seemingly accurate observations here about the glitches and distortions involved in Global Warming theories. I can't comment on who's right about this, but the fact that I'm reading these objections for the first time here and not in some mass media outlet says something about how Global Warming is being reported on.

John Lynch said... For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

John, your spiels are good, but I would add to them that the overpopulation problem you dismiss only had a brief respite through the productivity gains of the Green Revolution in the 60s, which have no "miracle high tech!!" analogy before or since, since Victorian England began public health and sanitation measures in the Empire.

We now, long before CO2 is even a threat by Greenie standards, have the problem of 1.2 billion people in 1900 growing to 12.7 billion in 2050.

230 million which are already into their last 10 years of mined, fossil water.Only 8 nations remain with enough arable land and less people to be grain exporters.Mass species extinctions are expected, and oil, strategic minerals, and regional wars to eliminate surplus people are predicted to be coming long before "poor polar bears" suffer. And wars between nations where too high a breeding rate & many people translates out into 60%youth jobless rates (Egypt, Yemen, Ivory Coast, Pakistan).

A NASA researcher, Ferenc Miskolczi, found that one of the governing equations for predicting atmospheric heat transfer used the original generic initial conditions, dating to Eddington, who wrote it decades ago. When Miskolczi modified the constants, which originally assumed a semi-infinite Earth atmosphere thickness, to reflect the real thickness of Earth's atmosphere, he got more realistic climate results for both Earth and, suitably modified, for Mars. He also asserted that the equation as previously used broke the energy balance. Translation - it created energy out of nothing. And that extra energy heated the computer Earth.

He didn't last at GFSC long after those assertions. I haven't done any serious looking, but if he's a crank, it should have been easy to refute his assertions that 1) the equation was misapplied, and that, 2) as misapplied, it violated the laws of thermodynamics. The guy wound up publishing in an obscure Hungarian Meteorology Journal, peer reviewed though. Be interesting to see what happens to his work now.

Penny @ 3:27:They need to immediately declare that this work was just a small percentage of the available data, and as such has no bearing on the "overwhelming evidence".

David @ 4:35:This may make a number of true believing scientists look foolish, venal or worse, but it's hardly the end of the AGW issue. Nor should it be. The crime against science has been to make a point of view something sacred--a sacred consensus. However, the fact that dishonest people have tried to slant the data and marginalize the skeptics does not mean that they are wrong. The entire issue is too complex, and the data is too ambiguous, for a conclusive answer one way or another.

Ann, this is what puts you firmly on the right, despite your voting record. At least provide a link to the opposing side: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

As for anyone that says anything about the past ten years actually cooling, you are dorks. Bart Hall especially. For this I won't provide links as they are so readily available and apparent and ignored by people just like y'all.

Very funny - you reference a site that was described in the hacked emails as set up to provide only the AGW side of the story.

As to cooling in the past ten years, read A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends

at http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

By all significant measurements the earth has been cooling if you analyze the last eight years with a simple linear regression. As the guide points out you have to balance the last ten years cooling with the hotter years of the 90s to get a linear upward. If you were to run a polynomial fit or say a Kalman Filter (a bastardized use but maybe appropriate for a system with so many unknowns) you would see the trends are down in the last ten years.

Enjoy your AGW religion, according to some I've read the second coming of the Dalton Minimum is near and it won't be your resurrection.

@David, go back and read my post at 2:01. The issue is simple -- the climate scientists are not behaving like real scientists.

I would add a couple (though maybe not to climatologists).

4) What are the costs of doing nothing (including offsetting any lost land to the ocean by increased farmland in the northern parts of Eurasia and North America)? 5) Are there cheaper ways to control or offset Global Warming?6) What is the optimal temperature or climate of the Earth?

I am sure we can come up with other questions that also need to be asked before we commit to trillions of dollars of supposed remediation.

Will Fox News apologize for falling for this bogus story? Dan Rather was forced to resign. Fox News' reporting on this issue is just as negligent as what Rather did.

Need a links to the "Dan Rathering" of the "hoax". I am still seeing the "AGW scientists have faked data" side, and haven't seen the proof that the information on the Russian servers is fake (but accurate).

The reason that the pro-AGW people need to move fast on this is that the longer that these emails, etc. remain unchallenged as far as their legitimacy, the more people find out about them, the less people are going to accept the proponents claim to consensus the next time the subject comes up.

Right now, it appears that the entire AGW movement is based on fraudulent science. And what is great there is that there appear to be emails for almost any occasion. For example, next time someone brings up consensus, esp. as indicated by peer reviewed articles, all the opponents need to do is drag out the email telling about deligimizing publications that have the effrontery to publish anything that is not puarty line AGW. And when the argument is made about how great the models are, the opponents can drag out the emails about faking the data to cover up the recent cooling trend, and the climate anomalies of 100 years ago.

Worse, there may be Cap and Trade legislation coming up in Congress. Any politician who votes for it may be vulnerable now for being a dupe and not very knowledgeable.

Doubtless your naked failure to provide accompanying links for any verifiable citations, re: this being a "bogus story," was simply a lamentable (and readily remedied) lapse on your part, and you'll be coughing up said supporting evidence any nano-second now.

Go to Climate Depot for several links to a couple dozen emails and a searchable database of the emails where these scam artists posing as scientists openly discuss their fraud gaming the data, the computer model assumptions and the final results released to the public, while engaging in a literal conspiracy to hide all of the above from independent scrutiny. Of particular concern to these scam artists is their inability to explain away the last decade of global cooling while manmade CO2 emissions rose exponentially as China and India industrialized and discovered the automobile.

This scandal begs the question of how far this fraud extends. The Chamber of Commerce would be well advised to bring suit challenging the “science” relied upon by EPA in making their finding that mandmade CO2 is causing atmospheric warming and conduct extensive discovery of the data, models, findings and communications of global warming proponents in the government and in the university system. Let’s see just how far this fraud goes. They need to engage computer forensics experts because I can see incriminating emails being deleted across the globe as we post.